"Dumb" dialogue options, yay or nay?

[callehe]

It might be helpful to stay away from describing characters as "dumb"; given AoD's breakdown, "average" and "above-average" might be more useful.

If I understand you correctly, you're describing three tiers of Int for dialog purposes: 4-6, 7-9, and 10 (since there are special "perks" for maxing out any stat).

To me, it's self-evident that above-average characters should have additional options. Don't look at it as denying options to the merely-average characters. After all, there's a cost to building a character with above-average Int, just as there's some flexibility inherent in building a character with merely average Int. This is even more true in AoD specifically, since VD has mentioned that there's no way to raise attributes after character creation.

The only problem I have with this approach is that it can lead to gaming the stats. Int must be useful in enough other (non-dialog) ways for a player to reasonably choose 5 or 6, or 8 or 9, rather than deciding to stick to the tiers you've defined for dialog (4 or 7 or 10).

agreed, to make every point count is what counts, excuse the pun. Award/punish each choice the player makes in the distribution of points, get rid of useless tiers. that is more important than dumb character options. but if that is in i'd like to see possiblities for a charismatic dummie to finish the game in a reasonable manner.

 

[Section8]

I like the idea, after all, most Bloodlines fans highly recommend playing as a Malkavian at some point, simply for the difference in dialogue.

Oh, and I also like the idea of dumb, but not necessarily comedic dialogue. Even though Arcanum/Fallout style idiocy has a place, I'm not sure if that's AoD.

However, the make or break for me would be a concerted effort toward giving NPCs varied dispositions toward idiots. For instance, to use your example - the notion that Feng (?) will counter a deliberate threat from a character with reasonable presence of mind, but is willing to ignore the brash actions of an idiot who doesn't know any better.

So it's a considerable undertaking, for questionable gain. In an ideal world, you wouldn't omit anything that lends more character to the game, but it's really your call as to whether the effort is worthwhile. Even if you have time and resources you specifically want to dedicate to dialogue, there's always the option of adding more selections to the standard set, rather than working on a couple of exclusive sets.

Or, like Greatatlantic suggests, you could simply throw in the occasional "blonde moment" - options that are as fluently spoken as conventional dialogue, but lack a vital part of comprehension:

- I'd like you to appraise something for me. *show map*
- Wise choice. Many people sell very valuable items without appraising for only a fraction of their real price. For 50 coins I'd be glad to research this extremely valuable artifact for you.
- I don't have any, so let's find another way.
- Another way?
- I thought that if I let you live, you would be grateful enough to tell me all you know and don't know about the map.
- Here is a deal. I won’t call the guard outside my house, and you will pay me 60 coins. How does that sound to you?
- I'm not threatening you for your money, I just want an appraisal.
- No my friend, you misunderstand me. I was demanding 60 coins as ransom for your own life.
- Huh? Why would I be threatening myself? And why pay you the ransom?
- You... nevermind. Just be very careful who you threaten around here. The guards keep their blades much sharper than your wit.

Also - in all seriousness, have you considered the possibility of post release content, or are you against the inclusion of things that "ought to have been included at release" on principle?

 

[galsiah]

Like others have said, it takes sacrifice to get to the higher tiers so that should be rewarded.

If this kind of system were applied to every stat - i.e. interesting gameplay for both low and high values -, then it really wouldn't "take sacrifice" in player terms. The player should be rewarded (with interesting gameplay) for high stats, and for low stats; it's only the character that should be sacrificing. (in an ideal world)

Besides, why stop at low intelligence. Characters with low strength should perhaps get bullied more often in conversations with burly NPC's, low charisma should lead to blunders, etc.

There's nothing wrong with that sort of thing. If interesting gameplay can be provided for poor ability / poor performance, then that's great. I'm not sure of the wisdom of adding in such things so late, but I guess VD has reasonable perspective on things.

 

[Dire Roach]

I think it would be a good idea to force a dumb (but not completely retarded) line of dialogue on a low int character every now and then, in a way that limits the number of paths available to complete certain quests. It would make playing a low int character a memorable experience, as opposted to just rolling up a minmaxed alt.

 

[One Wolf]

intelligence less than 6 is considered "stupid" in AoD? 6/10?

Would you consider a character with Str 6/10 strong? Joff's response is correct, btw.

no, but i'm not sure i would call him weak either. this is likely more a matter of me thinking that 1 would represent a character with barely enough str to stand, 5 being average, and 10 being hercules. your system may make more sense. if anything below 4 is too low to survive, then the scale is effectively 4-10, or six points, making 7 an average ability score. in that case a 4/5 stat would be a serious detriment.

Well you *could* introduce a "luck of the dumb" element, making certain elements of lore, information or even certain quests exclusive to dumb players. E.g. some NPC might be less careful with some info with a dumb player, considering him harmless, or dumb actions may lead to trouble, bit also divulge new paths or locations. That would be very cool, but I have doubts you have the time to put that much work in.

i think i recall in FO you could manage something like this with a low-int char by pumping luck up the max, i know in FO2 you could gain access to a computer network in the sierra army depot by mashing the keypad. there was a safe combination you could guess by spinning the dial as well.

i think the biggest issue with the low-int dialogue is that in order for it to be properly implemented significant time would need to be dedicated. this is only my estimation, but it seems like there are enough elements already existing in the game that need work/polish/whatever to push low-int dialogue into low priority. personally, i wouldn't play a low-int char on my first play, and probably not on my second either. there are many builds i enjoy more, and would only play low-int if it was really well done. maybe one of those micro-addition things for those interested in it without holding up the release date that so many of us are salivating over.

 

[callehe]

one possibility is to have the "dumb" options not so glaringly distinct from the normal options. instead of making dumb dialogue exclusive, let the dumber characters have overlap in dialogue with normal characters but limit their choice somewhat in the more intelligent options and add some dumb ones. this way you can build up the dumb dialogue from a skeleton of normal options instead from scratch.

 

[One Wolf]

Why should a retard be able to go on any kind of organised journey and hope to achieve anything? Why would anyone trust him with a quest?

i imagine that some jobs are best suited for a character with low int i.e. they won't question motives/doublecross/are easily manipulated.

I like the idea, after all, most Bloodlines fans highly recommend playing as a Malkavian at some point, simply for the difference in dialogue.

i loved bloodlines, and when i am urging others to play i suggest that they NOT play a malk the first play through and HIGHLY urge a malk for a second playthrough. hilarious and well implemented.

rolling up a minmaxed alt.

will minmaxing even work in AoD? i got the impression that a char would suffer for doing this.

 

[Elhoim]

Personally I think there should be many hidden dialogue options that require different triggers for them to appear:

For example:

INT>8
CHA>7
INT<6
INT .and. CHA=10 lol

All depending on the dialogue option and that using them should lead to interesting situations. (I would love to see the results of a Int and Cha of 10 option! :D)

There should not be a "hard" line of stupid/intelligent, or rude/charismatic, but as you slide down the stupid/rude side, more idiotic/rude options should appear, and there should be less intelligent/charismatic ones; and the opposite, of course.

This could be "easily" achieved by using the triggers I refered to at the beggining of the post.

 

[Zomg]

A hard cutoff FO1/FO2/Arcanum implementation is just a goofy Nth-replay gimmick, which has no character at all - you might as well be reading a hard copy of hidden text in the game, because you're way past playing at that point and down to licking the plate. A robust, continuous implementation is fine.

 

[JuJu]

I haven't read all this thread, but i think they are not really worth implementing right now.
If you still are going to make dumb character choices, please for the love of all holy in RPGs dont make them talk like retarded(not dumb). The fact that a person is dumb doesn't mean he can't talk. Also the stat is intelligence not common sense - some people who are dumb, but have seen the street life would be much harder to trick than a studious scholar, who has spent his life in a library.

 

[sqeecoo]

Different speech modes for more direct blunt types, yes please. Deliberately idiotic choices that will get the character in trouble (like him trying to be "clever" and out-conning a con, or bluffing in a stupid way), yes please.

"Duuuuur, pretty shiny. Give pretty shiny, me likey" retarded dialogue, please by the love of all that is holy, no. For that, I have the Internet, thank you very much.

Agreed. Giving dumb characters unique dialogue options and solutions is basically one huge joke that takes too much work. Fun and impressive, but not needed. Somewhat stupid or "unpersuasive" choices for non-diplomats would be great though.

 

[Nedrah]

I'm with the "No extra dumb content, just lock the retards out of extra options for really intelligent characters" people. The time would indeed be spent way better by making sure that the world gives you the feeling that it's actually reacting to your actions - through NPC dialogue or extra scripting, for example.


If the game becomes succesfull enough for you to determine that you want to spend further effort after release, you could actually patch extra content (Dumb options) in - thus giving something new to play with for players who've beaten the game already.#

For now, only bother if it doesn't mean big delays.

 

[HardCode]

I like the options you posted, VD. It'd be fun to play as a low-int char, I guess. I think, though, that when playing such a character, the player will miss many details of the setting.

That's my concern as well.

Yeah, but that is where replay value comes in. If the game is awesome, I want to be able to play it again without knowing everything. I don't care if I miss everything the first time, because on the second, third, fourth playthrough, I'll find it.

 

[The_Pope]

I wouldn't want a full set of dumb dialogue. That seems like a lot of work for a novelty option, and it also seems really silly to have int 6 retarded and int 7 quite smart. If you have lines with cutoffs all the way from 4 to 10, it will give that effect quite nicely without any need for extra lines.

For example, if an NPC isn't doing what you say:

(No req) I'm the boss, we do what I say
(No req) OK, we'll do it your way.
(CHA 6) I thought you were my friend!
(INT 8) *explain why you want him to do it*
(CHA 10) *look into his eyes and ask again*
(STR 10) *grab collar* THATS AN ORDER GARRUS! I'M THE COMMANDER!

As long as there some lines requiring each level, it should be fine. I'd be kind of annoyed to find out my int 5 character was the exact same as int 4.

 

[Elhoim]

I wouldn't want a full set of dumb dialogue. That seems like a lot of work for a novelty option, and it also seems really silly to have int 6 retarded and int 7 quite smart. If you have lines with cutoffs all the way from 4 to 10, it will give that effect quite nicely without any need for extra lines.

For example, if an NPC isn't doing what you say:

(No req) I'm the boss, we do what I say
(No req) OK, we'll do it your way.
(CHA 6) I thought you were my friend!
(INT 8) *explain why you want him to do it*
(CHA 10) *look into his eyes and ask again*
(STR 10) *grab collar* THATS AN ORDER GARRUS! I'M THE COMMANDER!

As long as there some lines requiring each level, it should be fine. I'd be kind of annoyed to find out my int 5 character was the exact same as int 4.

I agree with you, of course.

 

[psycojester]

(STR 10) *grab collar* THATS AN ORDER GARRUS! I'M THE COMMANDER!

That shoudl only work if your character has taken at least 3 levels in EXTREME!

 

[MisterStone]

I agree with what a lot of people have said...

The low-level dialogue is pretty good, but I'd rather not see you add weeks to the development timeline just for this feature... save it for AoD 2, as you will the gambling/hooker city and the annoying spouse NPC.

Also, since you can't have an intelligence below 4, I dont think this would really warrant special dumb or even "retardo" dialogue. A 4/10 is not bright, but it does not mean that you should have to act like Rain Man or something. Simply denying higher int option should be good enough for your purposes here.

 

[suibhne]

If we put it in IQ terms and figure 5 Int is average, then 5 works out to be maybe 100 IQ. 4 wouldn't be less than 90 or so, and "retarded" doesn't happen till sub-70 - probably a 2 in AoD terms. 1 Int would be "needs constant care".

That would still put a 10 Int around 150+ IQ, which is off the charts. (Genius-level is 140, even 130 on some scales.)

Yes, IQ is crap, but it's an interesting comparison for these purposes. Of course, my reasoning is all shot to hell if AoD's "average" isn't 5. :wink:

 

[Ismaul]

I mostly agree with what has been said. Dumb options are fun, but might not be worth the hassle. I'd rather have more defined dialogue options for other high stats such as CHA etc.

I also believe that a static cutoff (say intelligent responses are all INT>8) is not a good idea. Tiers are better, but I'd rather have progressive options, as to make every stat point count. You know, choice and consequence. Otherwise, I believe the scale 4-10 is wrong. Why have a stat "level" where near to nothing is gained? It means the character system is not adapted to the game, aka bad design. But it's forgivable, when you compare with all the shit games that get published.

That said, I'd gladly forget about making each stat point significant if, instead of gradual progression, we'd get a multiplicity of choices not dependant on one choice we made in the game's beggining. I value much more defining and developing a character ingame, than on the character sheet that sets the choices to the stats you have. But I guess those are considerations for another game.

Back to the dumb choices. I think the best way for AoD is to implement them in a progressive system. callehe is right on the money on this one:

one possibility is to have the "dumb" options not so glaringly distinct from the normal options. instead of making dumb dialogue exclusive, let the dumber characters have overlap in dialogue with normal characters but limit their choice somewhat in the more intelligent options and add some dumb ones.

This will permit the humour and alternative character development that goes with dumb characters, while not having to rewrite the whole game. That will also permit you to devote time to make a selected number of good dumb options that have a choice/consequence value. Plus, by not making the dumb characters really dumb, it will avoid problems such as to why the dumb characters understand perfectly what they are being told. Being really dumb would entail a rewrite of all NPCs' dialog to reflect what is understood, and that is too much work.

- I'd like you to appraise something for me. *show map*
- Wise choice. Many people sell very valuable items without appraising for only a fraction of their real price. For 50 coins I'd be glad to research this extremely valuable artifact for you.
- I don't have any, so let's find another way.
- Another way?
- I thought that if I let you live, you would be grateful enough to tell me all you know and don't know about the map.
- Here is a deal. I won’t call the guard outside my house, and you will pay me 60 coins. How does that sound to you?
- I'm not threatening you for your money, I just want an appraisal.
- No my friend, you misunderstand me. I was demanding 60 coins as ransom for your own life.
- Huh? Why would I be threatening myself? And why pay you the ransom?
- You... nevermind. Just be very careful who you threaten around here. The guards keep their blades much sharper than your wit.

I like that. In AoD, the game plays you!

 

[The_Pope]

Tiers are fine as long as they vary from dialogue to dialogue. If one has options for 5 and 8, another with 6 then one with 10 etc. then all the levels mean something.

 

[One Wolf]

my reasoning is all shot to hell if AoD's "average" isn't 5.

avg. is 6 i believe.

I also believe that a static cutoff (say intelligent responses are all INT>8) is not a good idea. Tiers are better, but I'd rather have progressive options, as to make every stat point count. You know, choice and consequence. Otherwise, I believe the scale 4-10 is wrong. Why have a stat "level" where near to nothing is gained? It means the character system is not adapted to the game, aka bad design. But it's forgivable, when you compare with all the shit games that get published.

i absolutely agree with this. how is dialogue set up so far VD? is it point by point or cutoff/range? it seems like a point by point system would require a huge amount of work and writing, but man would that be sweet. replayability on an epic scale, and i know all about your limitless love of all things epic.

 

[The_Pope]

VD should file a patent for his EXTREME REPLAYABILITY. Then he can release PR statements mentioning patented extreme replayability.

 

[Lumpy]

I disagree, dumb options *are* worth the hassle. Choosing a lower Strength makes the character weaker, but choosing a low Intelligence makes the player's experience worse.
But you don't need to write whole new dialogue options. For example, when Feng offers to identify your map, a character with decent streetwise would have the option to refuse, while one with a low stat would be forced to accept if he has the money.

 

[Joff1981]

I agree with Ismaul, single point cutoffs just encourage min-maxing on subsequent playthroughs and devalue other levels of intelligence just above or just below the cutoff. The more different cutoffs there are the better as this would make every stat point count for something in the game world.
Going with this I believe there should be more charisma options in dialogue for almost any time that you are trying to persuade someone of something even if it also requires an additional check. I think this because in my opinion charisma is always the worst place to put your stat points to get a meaningful gain in the game world, normally anything you'd use charisma for is handled by either intelligence/wisdom or a separate skill check on a persuasion skill. If there aren't plenty of charisma checks in dialogue the only other thing charisma is used for is Reaction bonuses which are normally not very visible to the player. Make charisma count, please.

 

[serch]

I'd use the concept of failure in dialog, which I think is a good compromise between time dedicated to the project and relevancy of PC's attributes in conversations. Every character has the same options, but some of them requires an attribute skill check. The outcome will be different depending on the result of the check. This way you award those that "roleplay" their characters instead of themselves with less failures.